China warns US on Asia military strategy

[Jimbuna]

Looks like cuts in the military, similar but larger in size to those the UK have already had whilst maintaining a quality effectiveness should the requirement to act become a reality.

The Chinese don't appear all that concerned....simply biding their time I should imagine.


China's state media have warned the US against "flexing its muscles" after Washington unveiled a defence review switching focus to the Asia-Pacific.
In an official news agency Xinhua said President Barack Obama's move to increase US presence in the region could come as a welcome boost to stability and prosperity.
But it said any US militarism could create ill will and "endanger peace".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16438584

[magicstix]

I'd say China's blatant bullying of its neighbors, causing them to come to us and ask for help, is creating plenty of "ill will" and "endangering peace."

I'd like to see Japan change its constitution to allow a real military, then the US give them Kitty Hawk... I'm sure the Chinese would *love* that.

[Sea Demon]

Looks like cuts in the military, similar but larger in size to those the UK have already had whilst maintaining a quality effectiveness should the requirement to act become a reality.



We've been here before. The Carter years wreaked havoc on military size and readiness. The Reagan administration reversed that dangerous trend. I believe somewhere soon down the road, we will have no choice but to reverse the action taken by the current administration.

[Jimbuna]

We've been here before. The Carter years wreaked havoc on military size and readiness. The Reagan administration reversed that dangerous trend. I believe somewhere soon down the road, we will have no choice but to reverse the action taken by the current administration.

So you believe there will be an increase in military spending?

[Sea Demon]

So you believe there will be an increase in military spending?

Yes. I think eventually (next few years). And the spending will be allocated differently from what it's being focused on now. Costs aren't going to decrease, military hardware will continue to age, and commitments aren't going to change. It's inevitable. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen this dynamic.

[CaptainHaplo]

My view on the current administration is that about 98% of what they do is wrong.

So when they get something RIGHT - I do my best to say so.

This is a very good move.

Our military has always been geared to fight major ground conflicts on 2 fronts. Its were we found ourselves in WWII, and the overall focused never changed. Its why we were able to successfully keep deterrent forces in place throughout the world while still fighting conflicts that absorbed significantly more manpower and treasure than we though in 2 countries.

But the reality is that this policy has been what has caused us to become the self-appointed "world police". When a country has the forces to exert, it is much more apt to exert them. Even the Art of War teaches this. It is a path (one of many) to ruin.

Asia will be the focal point for some time in geopolitics due to perceived economic strength (which is a house of cards in many ways - but I digress). The middle east is a focus for one reason - energy. Asia is a focus for both energy and economics. As resources dwindle in the middle east, as further energy sources are found and used, the focus changes. We need to be able to start preparing for what the future may hold.

Its important to realize that this isn't gutting the ground game. Its simply letting it no longer be the major game in town.

For all the "defense" hawks that scream about military cuts - yes we will spend less. But we are also not going to be fighting 2 wars - so we don't need to spend as much. Those same hawks would yell if every conflict ended today and we cut a single dime because of it.

Its important to note - we as a country have to shift our priorities and our way of thinking when it comes to fiscal policy. NO program, no entitlement, and no special interest - including military spending (which is driven for contractors primarily) should be off the table. We will all share in the sacrifice - and nothing should be untouchable to right the ship.

Just the view of someone that spend 8 years in a funny green suit, and never wants to go to the middle east again - unless its to Israel for a visit.

[TarJak]

My view on the current administration is that about 98% of what they do is wrong.

So when they get something RIGHT - I do my best to say so.

This is a very good move.

Our military has always been geared to fight major ground conflicts on 2 fronts. Its were we found ourselves in WWII, and the overall focused never changed. Its why we were able to successfully keep deterrent forces in place throughout the world while still fighting conflicts that absorbed significantly more manpower and treasure than we though in 2 countries.

But the reality is that this policy has been what has caused us to become the self-appointed "world police". When a country has the forces to exert, it is much more apt to exert them. Even the Art of War teaches this. It is a path (one of many) to ruin.

Asia will be the focal point for some time in geopolitics due to perceived economic strength (which is a house of cards in many ways - but I digress). The middle east is a focus for one reason - energy. Asia is a focus for both energy and economics. As resources dwindle in the middle east, as further energy sources are found and used, the focus changes. We need to be able to start preparing for what the future may hold.

Its important to realize that this isn't gutting the ground game. Its simply letting it no longer be the major game in town.

For all the "defense" hawks that scream about military cuts - yes we will spend less. But we are also not going to be fighting 2 wars - so we don't need to spend as much. Those same hawks would yell if every conflict ended today and we cut a single dime because of it.

Its important to note - we as a country have to shift our priorities and our way of thinking when it comes to fiscal policy. NO program, no entitlement, and no special interest - including military spending (which is driven for contractors primarily) should be off the table. We will all share in the sacrifice - and nothing should be untouchable to right the ship.

Just the view of someone that spend 8 years in a funny green suit, and never wants to go to the middle east again - unless its to Israel for a visit.
Not a bad analysis. I certainly agree that the Asian economic "power" is simply a rotten structure waiting for a strong enough wind to blow it away. People seem to have forgotten that China's "strength in the 2008 GFC was simply money printing. They got away with it so far but somewhere they will have to pay the piper.

[Sea Demon]

My view on the current administration is that about 98% of what they do is wrong.

So when they get something RIGHT - I do my best to say so.

This is a very good move.

Our military has always been geared to fight major ground conflicts on 2 fronts. Its were we found ourselves in WWII, and the overall focused never changed. Its why we were able to successfully keep deterrent forces in place throughout the world while still fighting conflicts that absorbed significantly more manpower and treasure than we though in 2 countries.

But the reality is that this policy has been what has caused us to become the self-appointed "world police". When a country has the forces to exert, it is much more apt to exert them. Even the Art of War teaches this. It is a path (one of many) to ruin.

Asia will be the focal point for some time in geopolitics due to perceived economic strength (which is a house of cards in many ways - but I digress). The middle east is a focus for one reason - energy. Asia is a focus for both energy and economics. As resources dwindle in the middle east, as further energy sources are found and used, the focus changes. We need to be able to start preparing for what the future may hold.

Its important to realize that this isn't gutting the ground game. Its simply letting it no longer be the major game in town.

For all the "defense" hawks that scream about military cuts - yes we will spend less. But we are also not going to be fighting 2 wars - so we don't need to spend as much. Those same hawks would yell if every conflict ended today and we cut a single dime because of it.

Its important to note - we as a country have to shift our priorities and our way of thinking when it comes to fiscal policy. NO program, no entitlement, and no special interest - including military spending (which is driven for contractors primarily) should be off the table. We will all share in the sacrifice - and nothing should be untouchable to right the ship.

Just the view of someone that spend 8 years in a funny green suit, and never wants to go to the middle east again - unless its to Israel for a visit.

As a former blue suiter in the USAF (both enlisted and officer) I agree with alot of what you say here. I'm not knocking cuts in general. The administration is correct to call for streamlining, but from a perspective of readiness and preparedness we will need to spend more in the coming years. It's inevitable. Unless our priorities change. Which I wouldn't mind at all. The current administration has outlined a vision of focusing on the Asia Pacific Rim. You can't do that with boots on the ground. We aren't going to challenge China in a ground conflict. That's simply not an option. It's Naval and Air and it doesn't come cheap.

[Sea Demon]

Not a bad analysis. I certainly agree that the Asian economic "power" is simply a rotten structure waiting for a strong enough wind to blow it away. People seem to have forgotten that China's "strength in the 2008 GFC was simply money printing. They got away with it so far but somewhere they will have to pay the piper.

Good point. But they also have modernized their military into a more modern one. Real hardware from that "money printing". And unfortunately, we are a huge enabler of it. And they continue to build up their military hardware at a fast pace. They continue to make claims in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and some of their generals boast of controlling islands out to the second chain. You know, where global trade occurs en masse. Theymake no bones about wanting the US NAVY to stay away from entering the South China Sea (effectively ending freedom of navigation on the seas), and are attempting to build military hardware to ensure that policy. That requires a response of some kind (Deterrence). Unless you're willing to live on their terms.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I agree that in conflict "boots in ground" won't work. "Quantity has quality of its own" as Uncle Joe said and in plain numbers anything but sending every able american to China you are not going to win ground engagement. What I'm really worried about is U.S. Navy and Air Force capability to counter chinese capabilities in long term. Here are two things which trouble me most:

1. Littoral Combat Ship (which I tend to call Littoral Combat Joke). It has very little own weapons and was supposed to get its firepower from weapon modules. Problem: module projects have been cancelled.

1 57 mm gun, single RAM or Sea-Ram missile launcher, few autocannons and machineguns and ofcourse helos. With that weapons layout its not very survivable in my opinion and in price of one american LCS (or LCJ which ever you prefer) China can build two much more heavily armed frigates.

2. F-35 Lightning II. Wonderful aircraft (atleast in paper) but will it be affordable? If you cannot buy it in large enough numbers you have a big problem.

These are my two most serious worries in U.S. military. What are your opinions?

[Jimbuna]

These are my two most serious worries in U.S. military. What are your opinions?

Barack Obama has announced that US defence spending will be cut to $660 billion a year, meaning that the USA no longer has the highest annual defence budget in the world.

That honour now goes to Manchester City.

j/k :03:

I'll get my coat.

[gimpy117]

we spend a ludicrous amount on our military, it's almost like the cold war never ended. it has allowed us to maintain total military dominance, but at the same time has cost vast amounts. personally, Losing that influence allowed by our military will be a bummer, but it will make us work with the rest of the world more....and somehow i feel harmony trumps strong arm politics

[magicstix]

we spend a ludicrous amount on our military, it's almost like the cold war never ended. it has allowed us to maintain total military dominance, but at the same time has cost vast amounts. personally, Losing that influence allowed by our military will be a bummer, but it will make us work with the rest of the world more....and somehow i feel harmony trumps strong arm politics

Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how much our defense budget has been cut since the Cold War? We already work with the world more. It's unfortunate that we've become the world police, but nobody else seems to want to step up to the job. Europe didn't want to go into Libya without us, and our allies (and not so close friends) in the Asian region are running and screaming to us away from China's bullying.

Maybe we should charge them for the protection we provide, maybe we should mind our own business, but there is no denying that our actions as the world police have benefited the west immensely.

[Oberon]

Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how much our defense budget has been cut since the Cold War? We already work with the world more. It's unfortunate that we've become the world police, but nobody else seems to want to step up to the job. Europe didn't want to go into Libya without us, and our allies (and not so close friends) in the Asian region are running and screaming to us away from China's bullying.

Maybe we should charge them for the protection we provide, maybe we should mind our own business, but there is no denying that our actions as the world police have benefited the west immensely.

Snag about isolationism with the US is that it never lasts more than a decade or two before you're dragged into global affairs, and by that time you're usually behind the ball so it takes you another year of casualties and hurt to catch up before you're back into full military muscle mode.
Besides, you think the defence budget is being cut now, if the US went into 'mind its own business' mode, then the defence budget would be slashed to pieces because there would be no reason to have such a big budget. The war industry would be scaled back too, which means when you wind up getting involved in the next big war then you'll have to reactivate that industry, which'll take time, which you might not have.
I don't think any of us can really afford to be truly isolationist anymore, the world is simply too small for that.

[magicstix]

Snag about isolationism with the US is that it never lasts more than a decade or two before you're dragged into global affairs, and by that time you're usually behind the ball so it takes you another year of casualties and hurt to catch up before you're back into full military muscle mode.
Besides, you think the defence budget is being cut now, if the US went into 'mind its own business' mode, then the defence budget would be slashed to pieces because there would be no reason to have such a big budget. The war industry would be scaled back too, which means when you wind up getting involved in the next big war then you'll have to reactivate that industry, which'll take time, which you might not have.
I don't think any of us can really afford to be truly isolationist anymore, the world is simply too small for that.

What we need is to push our allies who benefit from our policing actions to help out more and take a more active role in policing their backyards.

We've been trying to get Japan to take a more active role in checking China, but we sort of shot ourselves in the foot by putting pacifist clauses in their constitution during the occupation. Now they like those clauses and don't want to change them, but they still rely on us to help them with China.

Europe is starting to take on a policing role, but they still had a lot of trouble in Libya.

One problem though is when you have more than one group acting as the police, you're more likely to have them clash with each other. It's a very fine line between empire building and policing.

[gimpy117]

personally I ask the questions: Why do we need to be the world police anyways? I'd love to see the US take a more isolationist approach and actually have a department of defense, not a "department of preemptive strikes". There really is a difference between sticking our nose into people's business and saber rattling and actual defense.

[nikimcbee]

Has China rattled sabres with Taiwan lately? Are they still pushing to take Taiwan?

[gimpy117]

Has China rattled sabres with Taiwan lately? Are they still pushing to take Taiwan?

so we should too because everyone else is?

[nikimcbee]

so we should too because everyone else is?

You don't even know what I'm talking about.:doh:

[gimpy117]

You don't even know what I'm talking about.:doh:

well if that was a question rather than sarcasm...then I'm not sure if china has or not. My guess is either yes, or they have thought abut it.

[Oberon]

Not since the last straits incident which was back in the Clinton era IIRC, and the US solved that by shoving a carrier through the straits. The PRC at the moment is more focused in the direction of Vietnam, the Phillipines and the Spratleys. The guys in Beijing know that their continued existence in power is tied into Chinas economic progress, and that economic progress is tied into trade, and Taiwan is one of the PRCs biggest trading partners. Furthermore, they know that the only way they can take Taiwan and not wreck the PRC in the process is to do it quickly and bloodlessly, however Taiwan is a tough nut and won't go without a fight, so the PRC will have to a) take the US out of the equation through politicking and b) force the ROC into a position where it knows it cannot win, and then remove its ability to fight. A HANE would do the trick, I don't know how well hardened the ROCs stuff is, but the disruption in the infrastructure and civilian population would be enough to slow down deployment, and then when PLA paratroopers start dropping in, then the chaos sets in.
To be honest though, I don't see the PRC doing anything Taiwan related for another 5-10 years, it just hasn't got the ability to do it and not self-destruct in the process, and the people in power know that.

[Sailor Steve]

actually have a department of defense, not a "department of preemptive strikes".
Good point. There's a reason they stopped calling it the Department Of War.

[nikimcbee]

Not since the last straits incident which was back in the Clinton era IIRC, and the US solved that by shoving a carrier through the straits. The PRC at the moment is more focused in the direction of Vietnam, the Phillipines and the Spratleys. The guys in Beijing know that their continued existence in power is tied into Chinas economic progress, and that economic progress is tied into trade, and Taiwan is one of the PRCs biggest trading partners. Furthermore, they know that the only way they can take Taiwan and not wreck the PRC in the process is to do it quickly and bloodlessly, however Taiwan is a tough nut and won't go without a fight, so the PRC will have to a) take the US out of the equation through politicking and b) force the ROC into a position where it knows it cannot win, and then remove its ability to fight. A HANE would do the trick, I don't know how well hardened the ROCs stuff is, but the disruption in the infrastructure and civilian population would be enough to slow down deployment, and then when PLA paratroopers start dropping in, then the chaos sets in.
To be honest though, I don't see the PRC doing anything Taiwan related for another 5-10 years, it just hasn't got the ability to do it and not self-destruct in the process, and the people in power know that.

I think you're right about the time. If I recall, they were really rattlin' sabres in the 90s. Didn't they launch a "test missle" that just happened to pass over Taiwan?:dead: Hopefully the PRC will chill out about reunifiying Taiwan as the old guard dies out. I don't see the PRC upsetting the economic apple cart anytime soon.

The Vietnam issue could be interesting in the future, as their economy grows and competes with the PRC.:hmmm: